• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

AGW Watch

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    AGW Watch

    Latest climate change prediction from IPCC:

    World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century

    Getting there....
    I did predict they would soon get to 1 deg C. But they're retreating a bit too fast so I'll revise my estimate to 0.6 deg C by 2100.

    Citizens of the future will confirm my astuteness.
    Bored.

    #2
    Originally posted by ace00 View Post
    Latest climate change prediction from IPCC:

    World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century

    Getting there....
    I did predict they would soon get to 1 deg C. But they're retreating a bit too fast so I'll revise my estimate to 0.6 deg C by 2100.

    Citizens of the future will confirm my astuteness.
    cretinism
    Hard Brexit now!
    #prayfornodeal

    Comment


      #3
      I'm sure I heard something on Radio 4 about a fleet of wind powered yatchs that would create clouds that would reflect sunlight and lower the planet's temperature. Why aren't we building these? Surely it'd be cheaper than the ridiculous subsidy government is paying to energy companies for building wind farms.
      ǝןqqıʍ

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by DiscoStu View Post
        I'm sure I heard something on Radio 4 about a fleet of wind powered yatchs that would create clouds that would reflect sunlight and lower the planet's temperature. Why aren't we building these? Surely it'd be cheaper than the ridiculous subsidy government is paying to energy companies for building wind farms.
        yup i heard that too - its been around for a while now
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6354759.stm

        what they DID say tho, was that the ships should not be used to let the oil companies off the hook
        Coffee's for closers

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by DiscoStu View Post
          Surely it'd be cheaper than the ridiculous subsidy government is paying to energy companies for building wind farms.
          Wind is subsidised, but (apparently) produces around 80 times the energy used to install over its lifetime.

          So is it valid to call it a subsidy if it eventually outputs more than was input, even if that energy could have been bought cheaper?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
            Wind is subsidised, but (apparently) produces around 80 times the energy used to install over its lifetime.

            So is it valid to call it a subsidy if it eventually outputs more than was input, even if that energy could have been bought cheaper?
            Admittedly from the Torygraph, but the sums don't seem to add up.
            ǝןqqıʍ

            Comment


              #7
              Here's a link to the Radio 4 programme if anyone's interested. They've also got a few things to say about wind power.
              ǝןqqıʍ

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by DiscoStu View Post
                Here's a link to the Radio 4 programme if anyone's interested. They've also got a few things to say about wind power.
                Hmm, interesting listening.

                To sum up:
                • The grinning Blair didn't understand or was confused about the agreement he signed to supply 20% of energy from renewables by 2020.
                • This amounts to 40% of all electricity generated and, for other reasons, means 35% of it has to be sourced from wind power.
                • Because of government ineptness in handling subsidies, energy rip-off merchants will end up charging consumers 40% more than should have been necessary (cue railway sell off).
                • Wind power is intermittent and requires huge unused capacity to exist in the network. Spare capacity in the form of a gas power stations and gas bought from Russia will be required, and this increases our energy supply risks.
                • Red tape and opposition to building wind farms means we couldn't meet the 2020 target anyway.
                • Wind turbines would do 'irreparable damage to the countryside'!!!


                Some of this appears all to be true and all is probably solvable. Especially with less reliance on wind - 40% is way too much IMO, unless by some remote chance it has been thought through, e.g. agreements to sell excess capacity abroad and import energy when necessary. Nuclear is my preference too, but appears to have been bailed out with big subsidies in the past also. I would prefer not to rely on imported energy at all, but rather be a net energy exporter. Wind farms would just add to the energy we could sell. We once built an empire using our vast energy reserves (now mostly gone), but we are more richly endowed with wind than most of Europe (and not bad on tide either). Carp on sunshine though.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Here's an interesting way of running wind turbines, as developed in Japan:
                  In the 12 months it has been operating, its million-pound windmills have consumed 43 times more power than they have generated.
                  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle687157.ece


                  For some reason they decided to put wind turbines where the average wind speed is 2.5 km/h (0.7 m/s)

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Maybe an answer is to stick windmills on helium balloons tethered five miles up in the stratosphere. At least you'd get a more reliable flow of wind from the slipstream.

                    But then you'd need to produce the helium, and keep it topped up, and I wonder how much energy that would require.

                    The Government should have started building two dozen fast breeder reactors years ago. Probably in years to come, this dawdling and indecision will be seen as their biggest failure and there's no doubt we'll all suffer.

                    Also, a lot of geothermal energy could be obtained if people put their minds to it.
                    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X